Well in Congress leave the rules the same. So two or more parties need to work together to get anything passed. Maybe it winds up with 4 parties left to right: socialists-dems-reps-libertarians or something like that.
With the presidency you could slice up the EC or get rid if it altogether.
Most other nations with representatives and elections have more than 2 parties. They make it work.
True, other countries make it work, but we are the country. Countries not name the U.S.A. are able to do things we could never do. Simply because we are really big, extremely wealthy, and provide defense for many of those countries in such a way that they have little investment of their own defense.
The other thing I am not sold on is if additional parties actually would represent the interests of it’s constituents better than the current system.
Like I said, I used to be for it. But while congress has it’s rules, having an executive that could be put in place by a quarter of the population is not an appealing idea to me.
I am willing to be wrong here. But like I said, I am not sure I like the math.
We already had an election with the two worst possible candidates in the country being the only choices. Imagine the nuts that would fall out of the sky if we kicked the door further open?
That’s because of the two party system we have now. There’s literally no other viable parties to vote for. No competition. So a voter who didn’t like Trump or Clinton (me and millions of others) might as well have stayed home.
Most countries with 4+ major parties have parliamentary type systems where the executive/Prime Minister has less power and needs to build a coalition in Parliament.
Less executive power is looking better and better.
How do any of these things hinder a ‘more than 2’ party system?
And those parties are run by a few elites. They don’t even represent their supposed members.
And by that logic we would be better off with one party.
Works for the Russians and the Chinese. Cubans too. 
Also the cruelest of irony.
Pat terrified of 34% of people controlling the country. 62.9m/323.1m=19.46%?
Then double irony for people that believe in the free market believing less choice is the better option for the American people.
On top of that many eligible voters don’t vote. So people that bother voting are over represented lol.
Just seems weird to me. I’ve heard plenty of arguments against a 3-4 party system that arguably make sense, but “I don’t want 34% to have control” kinda seems like a joke one to me. Especially, considering, ya know… the math.
I am ignorant of most parliamentary systems and how prime ministers work. When I try to read about British/Israeli/German election results it doesn’t compute. So I don’t know if it’d be better than the electoral college or not.
I do know the executive branch has been absorbing major power since Lincoln. Having near omnipotent executives is bad historically, no matter which team you root for. Given the FISA abuse, drone strikes, executive orders etc… I’d support an amendment to weaken the executive branch.
The ‘co-equal’ branches of government thing isn’t working as intended.
It never really was. Even at 'Murica’s prime it was a 40/40/20 split at best. The understandable reluctance to throw out SCOTUS level precedent for everything and anything has always made it a lock for 3rd most powerful branch.
My main critique of the parliamentary system is America already has a pretty nasty problem with voting for the party and not the man, and I think that would only escalate. I still think I’d prefer that style of govt but it’s nowhere near reasonable to ever expect America to get there. Maybe in another 2-300 years when the raging hardons for the FFs might be lower than it is today.
In some states it’s pointless. You already know who is going to win. Sure, the loser may lose by a smaller margin but he is going to lose. Throw in a third and fourth party and the statewide monopoly a party has might be in jeopardy.
The way it is now, if you are a true leftist you have to settle with the Dems. If you are a true conservative you have to settle for the Reps. If you are a true liberal, you are screwed.
People only agree with the Founders as if they were gods when it suits their position on an issue. And it’s pretty much on only one issue: guns. No one cares what the Founders thought about when it comes to the 4th Amendment. The recent events in DC showed that.
They don’t. I said upfront I could be wrong and would have no problem with it. I am just expressing some reservations. Saying maybe a third party isn’t the panacea we think it could be. It could be better or worse.
You have to take into account not all 323 m are all legal adults of voting age.
And of those who chose not to vote when they could have, that’s their own problem. If you have a say and don’t use it, tough shit on the outcome.
Sure it is. The system is designed for gridlock.
Is it perfect, no. Is there a better system in the world? Absolutely not.
So when you said you didn’t like the thought of 34% of people controlling the whole, you really meant 34% of the voting populace?
Yes. I was being very general, with the assumption everybody understood the idea, not the semantics.
The funny thing is that the person who won didn’t even get the majority of the vote.